St James' Park

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Wasn’t that majority actually from season ticket holders?

Yes...go on?

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

This is a bit of a daft question and mainly for the people who 100% do not want to move from St James.  

 

What is it that constitutes St James to you?  I'm not sure on my gramma there so maybe some example.  

 

If it was torn down and completely rebuilt is it still St James?  I raise this as I went to games when there were terraces at both ends.  In my mind, in some ways, I don't really consider that the same ground as it is now.  It was so different in looks, atmosphere almost everything.  

 

If you'd still consider it St James on a complete rebuild then why not if it moved a few hundred yards into the park?  I know St James is the specific place and leases park is another but I don't get why it matters if the ground is on that specific spot.  I agree that what's great about it is the city centre location.  

 

I think what I struggle to understand is the people who 100% do not want to move anywhere, even to leases park.  Not looking for an argument as there is no right and wrong,  it's all about what it means to the individual.  I'm just trying to understand. 

 

 

 

 

[Stifler]

27 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Yes...go on?

Nothing much. Just I was listening to it on the radio, apparently the majority of Man Utd season ticket holders were in favour of a totally new ground. Younger fans who were not season ticket holders were in favour of a redevelopment.

It kind of goes against the stereotype of younger fans and non-season ticket holders only wanting a new stadium.

 

We obviously don’t know anything more on the questions. For example season ticket holders could have been pressed more on it, I.E. Your season ticket price will go up if they stay at Old Trafford, or you had to also commit to cup games.

[et tu brute]

41 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

This is a bit of a daft question and mainly for the people who 100% do not want to move from St James.  

 

What is it that constitutes St James to you?  I'm not sure on my gramma there so maybe some example.  

 

If it was torn down and completely rebuilt is it still St James?  I raise this as I went to games when there were terraces at both ends.  In my mind, in some ways, I don't really consider that the same ground as it is now.  It was so different in looks, atmosphere almost everything.  

 

If you'd still consider it St James on a complete rebuild then why not if it moved a few hundred yards into the park?  I know St James is the specific place and leases park is another but I don't get why it matters if the ground is on that specific spot.  I agree that what's great about it is the city centre location.  

 

I think what I struggle to understand is the people who 100% do not want to move anywhere, even to leases park.  Not looking for an argument as there is no right and wrong,  it's all about what it means to the individual.  I'm just trying to understand. 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty certain the vast amount of our support are now in the realms of moving to a new stadium. If we want to really challenge then there is no other option in order to increase revenue streams. Means fuck all anyway as PIF will do what they think is best and rightly so. The amount it would cost to just increase the current stadium by a few thousand is just not financially feasible. The team comes first every single time 

[TBG]

Says a lot that STACK could do something as respectful as this but out right refuses to do so

 

 

 

[Abacus]

1 hour ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

This is a bit of a daft question and mainly for the people who 100% do not want to move from St James. 

 

It's not a daft question, and I'm not the person to answer it, since a move a bit back into Leazes park would be ok with me.

 

A complete rebuild at least keeps it at the top of the hill, but I understand that may not be possible with the limited capacity it could likely bring, so if moving a bit is the better option, then fine.

 

I don't support any move out of the city centre, nor to the Arena site.

 

I suppose there is an identity crisis really about what any club really means. Your owners won't usually be local, nor will most of your players. So what are you actually supporting? Just the name of the club, wherever it plays? Bobby Robson answered this all much more eloquently.

 

It's why people are attached to the pitch, the years of walking the same streets to get there, seeing familiar faces on the way, the memories you had watching that piece of grass.

 

If you strip everything else away, and there really is nothing more as players, managers and owners come and go, then that is what you're left with. I guess that's the argument. But yeah, Leazes would work for me.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

49 minutes ago, Abacus said:

 

I don't support any move out of the city centre, nor to the Arena site.

I don’t either.  It would really feel weird to be somewhere completely different. I think I could get used to it eventually if it was still walking distance. 
 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Abacus said:

 

It's why people are attached to the pitch, the years of walking the same streets to get there, seeing familiar faces on the way, 

This bit I get.  It relates to the above. I like having a beer in a pub I did 20-30 years ago.  A similar walk is nice.  Somewhere just beyond where it is now makes no odds to me. 
 

[LFEE]

19 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I don’t either.  It would really feel weird to be somewhere completely different. I think I could get used to it eventually if it was still walking distance. 
 

 

 

This bit I get.  It relates to the above. I like having a beer in a pub I did 20-30 years ago.  A similar walk is nice.  Somewhere just beyond where it is now makes no odds to me. 
 

 

Would you support it if it was the difference between you being able to attend or miss out and have to watch on TV if we remained and did a small expansion?

 

Probably more a question for @Abacus

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by LFEE